masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Star of Terra
Delete Nomination Honestly, I'm kinda in favor of deletion here. There's not much info, and it's only applicable in one background. As such, I'm putting it up for deletion, to see what the community thinks. Consider me in favor of deletion. SpartHawg948 07:41, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Why a candidate for deletion? Shouldn't any and all info be welcome? I'm sure people interested in what the Star of Terra is would be interested in knowing more about it, including whether or not other prominent figures have received it in Mass Effect. --Inseven 07:42, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :Reasons for candidacy are stated in the template and here. Any and all info is welcome. However, not all subjects merit articles of their own, which is a well-established precedent on the wiki. As stated above, the community will be the deciding factor here, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinions, being a tad bit on the fence but leaning towards deletion. SpartHawg948 07:45, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::I can respect that. I'm somewhat new to the Wikia community in general but have been known for being stubborn in dishing out info that others find unnecessary. How does the community... deliberate... over this? I'm against deletion, and I personally think that a lack of articles such as this are a major downfall of this particular wiki. Deleting articles such as this shows that people aren't interested in the rich lore and history that the Mass Effect universe provides. The Advocate 07:52, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :I dunno about all that. The articles themselves demonstrate that people are interested. The fact that deletion proposals are voted on democratically demonstrates that the problem lies not with the people not being interested, but with the articles themselves being deemed insufficient. SpartHawg948 07:55, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks for the support of my first page on this Wikia, The Advocate. I also find many pages in this Wikia to be somewhat sparse on info on some topics. Just my opinion. --Inseven 07:56, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Even though this information is only applicable in one background, to me the information is relevant and cannot be incorporated into any other page. I also edit/use the dragon age wiki, and any piece of information from any origin is included within the wiki. My point about people not being interested in lore is something I do consider to be a point of interest on this wiki, as many articles I would consider to be sparse on additional lore/information at the best of times. The Advocate 08:01, September 6, 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Fair enough. And, as of now, it's 2-1 in favor of keeping the page. We'll just have to wait and see if anyone else votes one way or the other. I'm all in favor of keeping the info, I'm just of the opinion that there are likely better ways to present it. For example, since there are other awards and decorations we know of, it may be more appropriate to put together one page for them all, similar to the Entertainment page, which contains many entries that by themselves are far too minor to merit articles of their own. We could then redirect "Star of Terra" (and all other awards, for that matter) to the appropriate section of that page. Just a thought... SpartHawg948 08:02, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :I agree that that would be an acceptable alternative. My initial reaction to your request for deletion assumed that you just wanted to delete the article entirely. Anything that makes the wiki easier to navigate without sacrificing information is fine by me. The Advocate 08:07, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::That seems agreeable to me as well. But only if the page is voted in favor of deletion in the first place. I can't have my first page here deleted, it would scar me for life! /kidding --Inseven 08:10, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I updated the template to indicate the revised proposal. Hopefully that'll cut down on confusion. SpartHawg948 08:11, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :Haha, go easy on me, I don't know the MoS or even know what that acronym stands for. I am what the interwebz would call a Wikia noob. --Inseven 08:15, September 6, 2011 (UTC) I'm in favor of deletion. There's barely any info here.--Captainhu 08:15, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :(edit conflict) No worries. Everyone's a noob at one point. MoS stands for Manual of Style, which is basically the guideline for how articles are laid out. The general rule is that any "Known ___" sections go at the end of articles. SpartHawg948 08:17, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Captainhu, do you agree that the article should be folded into a single page for multiple awards across the Mass Effect genre? This is what SpartHawg948 has offered as a possible alternative if the page is later deleted. --Inseven 08:24, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :Support Deletion. This just isn't enough info here and what is here is stretched out. Lancer1289 12:11, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Stretched out? What? Does someone here pay for the servers? If so, sure, get rid of this page. But don't just erase all mention of the topic - consider merging the article into a single medals/awards page for god's sake. Come on, what is a Wikia without an article for people/places/things of interest in the game? I just can't understand all the "very little info, time to delete." Does this Wikia only post what topics are found in the in-game Codex? Sometimes you have post info you gather on your own, that's what makes it a public encyclopedia. How many other things in this Wikia have no page because "there's not much info?" God forbid this site features another clear, well written stub on a topic in Mass Effect. That must be against MoS! Please lighten up people! --Inseven 17:21, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Oppose deletion. Since this is only applicable for one background, including it on another page with every other medal would just make that page confusing and bogged down with qualifications. As is, it's easy to find, and I'm frankly in favor of every bit of lore having its own page. SlayerEGO1342 17:27, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Support deletion. Not enough info to warrant an article, and the subject matter is obscure and lacks notability. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, this would be the sole article on the wiki based on an award, and none of the other ones I'm aware of require anything more than a sentence or two to explain them. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:45, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :If I may ask, SlayerEGO, how would a page with all known awards and decs be confusing and bogged down with qualifications? (For the record, right now there are four such awards and decs I'm aware of, none of which have much known info) Is the Entertainment page confusing and bogged down? If you want every bit of lore accessible, why not make a page where we can also feature the Silver Dagger, Nova Cluster, and Palladium Cross? None of those has enough info to justify a separate article. Should we just not include that lore? And how would the new article, to which "Star of Terra" would redirect, be hard to find? (Since "it's easy to find" is one of your justifications for keeping this article) Under the new article I proposed, typing Star of Terra into the search box would take you straight to the info on the Star of Terra, just as it does now. SpartHawg948 21:24, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::I think we should include separate articles for those awards. What I'm suggesting is that the wiki is a little too streamlined. If the Star of Terra were to be included on a page with other awards, all the info about Shepard during the Skyllian Blitz would need to be clarified as subjective to a specific background, or left out entirely. The former would be kind of an illusion-breaker for anyone who didn't have that background for their Shepard, which is easily remedied by just having a separate page for it, a page which also isn't hurting anyone with its existence. The latter would detract from the site's already sub-par collection of information. I assume the community has decided that streamlining the wiki with generalization pages is the way to do things, but I think having separate articles, however stubby, would make the site seem more complete. SlayerEGO1342 21:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC) But you pose a false dilemma here. You suggest that either we put info clarifying that it's only for one background, which somehow would be an "illusion-breaker", or don't include the info at all. We can include the info without it somehow breaking any illusions. Personally, I think including more information makes the wiki more complete. Opting for an awards page would include more info, as we could include other items that would never get their own pages. This route (separate articles) actually diminishes the information available, to the detriment of the community. SpartHawg948 21:44, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :Why not have an awards page with a sentence or two about the award, and if there ends up being more information (such as if Shepard is a recipient), it can be linked to its own page (this one)? SlayerEGO1342 21:47, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Because, frankly, redundant things are redundant. I like redundancy in airplanes, not in wikis. If we have a page dedicated to awards and decorations, it doesn't make sense to have separate pages for individual awards and decorations. Especially since (at present, at least) the community seems more inclined to delete the individual articles (such as this one) due to lack of any substantive information. SpartHawg948 21:50, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Why does the community have a problem with stub articles? SlayerEGO1342 21:52, September 6, 2011 (UTC) I can't answer for everyone else, but I don't see the need to have many articles scattered all over the place when we can centralize similar items which lack much info in one page for similar objects, items, etc, such as awards, movies, etc. Streamlining makes for easier accessibility, which works to everyone's advantage. SpartHawg948 21:55, September 6, 2011 (UTC) I'm against deletion. This page isn't doing any harm by being here, and I haven't noticed a huge number of other awards in the game, such that a summary page is necessary. Why make an unnecessary change? Diyartifact 22:56, September 6, 2011 (UTC) :We're up to five named in-game awards without even doing more than a cursory search. The novels and such will likely yield more. Seems sufficient to start a page for them. As for why, well, don't people generally say we need to be more inclusive of info? That's exactly what is being proposed here. SpartHawg948 23:04, September 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Hmm. Well, as long as the information is preserved on the new Awards page, I guess it's not unreasonable. I don't really understand what people have against small pages, though. Diyartifact 02:29, September 8, 2011 (UTC) I do support the creation of the new "Awards" page. I still don't support stub articles--Captainhu 12:21, September 7, 2011 (UTC) Well, later people. Worst thing about Wikias is when somebody comes and takes information you've put down and erased it. You guys want to be blind to the rich lore of Mass Effect, good, go ahead and drown yourselves in this dull Wikia all day. I am now in favor of permanent deletion, final vote. Bye. --Inseven 19:38, September 7, 2011 (UTC) There seems to be a rash of rage-quitting going around.--Captainhu 20:33, September 7, 2011 (UTC) I am in favor of deletion if (and only if) a summary 'Awards' page is created which still contains the same information. Also, Captainhu, just because an article is a stub, doesn't mean it's unnecessary. There are plenty of situations I can think of where relevant information only belongs in a stub article. The Advocate 23:27, September 7, 2011 (UTC) When I see one of those situations, I may agree with you. Hasn't happened so far.--Captainhu 01:27, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Ugh. Acrimonious discussions and excessively strict administration like this really discourage me from trying to contribute to the wiki. I miss Tullis. Diyartifact 02:29, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :I feel that is unjustified. The only heated comment I can discern is Inseven's, which insinuates in an ostensibly provocative manner (Captainhu's observation that this exemplifies "rage-quitting" is, in my opinion, rather astute) that other editors here are operating in bad faith because his article has been proposed for deletion. Any contributions anyone makes to this wiki are subject to this wiki's rules, standards, and community criticism. This article is not exempt. I also don't see what any of this has to do with "excessively strict administration", or administration period. This is a community discussion. It was proposed by a member of the community, and its outcome will be decided by the community. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::In my opinion, Inseven is out of line, but Captainhu is a bit out of line as well. My comment about excessive strictness is directed at how this page was even nominated for deletion in the first place -- amalgamation into an "Awards" page seems sensible to me, but in my opinion a complete deletion should never have been proposed. Diyartifact 05:46, September 8, 2011 (UTC) I'm in favor of deleting and moving it to an "Awards" page. Frankly, stuff like this doesn't annoy me nearly as much as it does for others. LordDeathRay 05:21, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :I don't see anyone being out of line here. No one was insulted, and while there was a bit of heated language, it didn't cross any lines that I could see. Frankly, it appears that Inseven's rage-quit was the result of my undoes of his most recent edits to the page. However, as noted in edit summaries, those edits were undone becuase of factual inaccuracies, redundant language, etc. Certainly nothing was done that would warrant his comments. :Now, as to Diyartifact's comment, this page being nominated for deletion has nothing to do with excess strictness. Any page can be nominated for deletion if someone thinks it's deserving of deletion. And in every case, the community decides. I can't see how that is excessively strict. As for why the article was nominated for deletion before the awards page idea was floated, it's simple: Because, like all of you, I'm human. I didn't think of the awards idea till a little later, when I noticed some more awards listed on other pages. If I'd been aware of those beforehand, I'd have gone that route straightaway. But, not being perfect, I didn't. Sorry... SpartHawg948 06:19, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Oppose deletion. Sometimes I feel like our 'Relevance' or 'Notability' policy is too strict. I have no issue with short articles at all. Just because there's not enough info for a long article, doesn't mean the topic doesn't deserve one. In this case I think there's enough info for this article. I'm fine with creating an 'Awards' page (though that's a terrible title, and implies some kind of gameplay connection, based on a 30second wikipedia search, 'Decorations' or 'Alliance Decorations' would be more appropriate), but I kind of feel that is is an unnecessary compromise. PS: This new edit page is AWFUL. First time I've used it and I want to puke. JakePT 08:58, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :Well, we've got awards from multiple species/governments (for example, in ME2, Ashley is stated to be the recipient of the salarian Silver Dagger and turian Nova Cluster), which would preclude "Alliance", and we've been talking also about including civilian awards, such as the Hitara Prize. So, to pull something straight out of USAF terminology, perhaps "Awards and Decorations"? It's a catch-all, though it's a bit long. :And I totally agree. I hated this new edit page the very first time I used it too. I thought something had gone horribly wrong. Then I realized it had, just in a different way... :( SpartHawg948 09:44, September 8, 2011 (UTC) The deletion proposal passes 6-3. Deleting now. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:39, September 13, 2011 (UTC)